The Economist: The Great American Slowdown - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11016333&fsrc=RSS

<comment><USER2> _There are two big questions about this downturn for America and the world: how long? And how deep?_

Funny, the moment I read it, I checked the publication date of the article thinking it would be from 2001/2002.

</comment><comment><USER3> Easy way to get karma: submit The Economist articles.</comment>


0xAX/linux-insides: A little bit about a linux kernel - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/0xAX/linux-insides <comment><USER2> Direct link to the book _Linux Insides_ : [https://0xax.gitbooks.io/linux- insides/content/index.html](https://0xax.gitbooks.io/linux- insides/content/index.html)</comment>


Poor Man's Bose – Open Office and on the Go Noise Control - <AUTHOR> http://e1z.ca/code/clog/?p=225 <comment><USER2> I'm gonna step in and defend the Bose headphones that he seems to have had some seriously bad luck with.

I had a pair of wired QC25's as my first pair, and they had some really good noise cancelling. I could still distantly hear people talk, but when I had music on them (albeit probably louder than him) I could hear almost nothing. Regarding Quality: Those QC25s were used when I got them (couldn't justify full price at the time), and they lasted for about 2.5 years beyond, being used literally every day for 5+ hours per day (Programming with music is my thing)

When those broke, I had absolutely no problem justifying what seems to be an exorbitant price for the newer bluetooth QC35 set. These are far beyond what the other set were. Nowadays I keep my music much quieter - listening to soft electronica at maybe 1/4 of the volume I used to, and when I do that, I can't even hear myself type on my mechanical keyboard, let alone any people talking. People can come up to my desk and talk directly to me and I won't realize it unless I see their mouth moving.

I'm not sure why his experience with Bose has been so bad, but I'm more likely to suspect he got a lemon for his headphones. I have had my QC35's now for....2 years, with I would average at 6-8h of use every day at work. They don't have a single iota of visible wear on them, and the battery life is still 24-32 hours on a single charge. I imagine that, barring any accidents with them, they will probably last another 2+ years for me.

<comment><USER3> I've tried many and I must agree with the OP - Bose headphones are terrible in terms of build quality and materials, bad in terms of sound quality, average when it comes to noise cancelation, poor in terms of features and absolutely bad at this price tag. I've settled for Sennheiser's Momementum and can't recommend them more - made of metal and leather, build to last, superb sound quality, very good noise cancelation and nice features and amazing support. I'm really surprised they're not discovered by people spending such amount of money on headphones.

<comment><USER4> Those Sennheiser are not active noise cancelling which is the defining feature of Bose QC headphones - and why people are paying the money. Closed back headphones do work great for blocking noise, but are usually heavier and less comfortable.

<comment><USER5> That's been my experience with people who go on about how terrible the Bose headphones are. You can get passive noise cancelling with Shure in ear phones (basically ear plugs) that is pretty good, but Bose is by far the best for active noise cancelling.

Their build quality and sound is also pretty good. I have a decent music background and also have Sennheiser HD650s which the audiophile crowd loves, but I think their build quality is cheap plastic (they're also open, require an amp, and cost $400).

I think the Bose hate is mostly tribal nonsense - it's cool to signal audiophile virtue by hating a dominant brand that lay people like.

<comment><USER4> > I think the Bose hate is mostly tribal nonsense - it's cool to signal > audiophile virtue by hating a dominant brand that lay people like.

I think most of the Bose hate comes from their speakers which cost quite a bit for the sound quality. Much of that might be historical.

These days though I don't think anyone buys Bose products solely for their sound quality, they buy them for specific use cases like noise cancelling, or filling a room with a very small speaker (those Bose sound docks were pretty incredible when they came out). Bose has done a good job at doing something unique while offering sound quality that is mostly good enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I read this as "the work water-cooler was full of poison so I found some cheap antidote and now I only suffer mild headaches."

I'm glad this person found some inexpensive tech that works for them. But if we only focus on blocking the sound (which is not that effective for some) rather than focusing on what it means to have an effective working environment, we're missing opportunities to shape our working cultures/environments to be one of "library quiet respectful".

I'm extremely sensitive to sounds of all varieties. I don't understand how anyone works with music blasting into their ears. Even white/pink/brown-noise feels like a barrage of sound. Earplugs make me feel claustrophobic, and I have the uncontrollable urge to rip them out after 15 minutes. Noise- cancelling tech almost always fails to block human voices (our brains are hard-wired to listen for voices after all).

At the risk of stating the obvious, we need to pay more attention to making more "zone-friendly" workspaces. I.e., _not_ loud, open offices where everyone feels okay talking at full volume.

<comment><USER7> Unfortunately, we're all doomed to seek workarounds for the time being. A "zone-friendly workspace" is an abstract concept that will show in productivity over long time. An open office is cheap _right now_ , and will be cheaper as headcount increases. Then you have conflicting individual interests - programmers may dislike open floors, but sales people (apparently) love them, the bosses love them, and even among programmers there's always this likable extrovert who likes open floors and is vocal about it, ruining any chance of collective action.

(It also seems people dislike open floor plans for different reasons. You don't like sounds. I don't mind sounds, I don't like feeling the presence of other people around me all the time.)

<comment><USER8> > It also seems people dislike open floor plans for different reasons. You > don't like sounds. I don't mind sounds, I don't like feeling the presence of > other people around me all the time.

Alas, I suffer both but it's more socially acceptable to blame noise...

<comment><USER7> Now you make me wonder - maybe we're not the only ones, but people only talk about noise because the core issue is taboo...

<comment><USER9> I don't know if taboo is an accurate description but I agree that we don't seem to be talking about this issue honestly, on either side. Every manager I've ever had claimed it was about saving money, but when pushed eventually admitted it wasn't really about money at all. It's like everybody is afraid to talk about what it really is about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As someone who works in a garage most of the day as a mechanic, just what is office noise? they all seem pretty quiet to me. What are we trying to reduce?

Around the shop I carry a few pairs of disposable foam Howard Leight earplugs. They come in small plastic bags, or you can buy them in boxes of 500. I'll hand them out to apprentices I catch not wearing ear protection or to old timers so they can sneer at me. they work wonders for any kind of noise. We once had a garbage truck plow through a rolling dumpster out back and I never knew about it until lunch.

<comment><USER11> I'm going to piggy back off of your comment to say that I have no problems working "in the zone" in an open office. I can just ignore what is going around me. And I had HR sitting right behind me (as in 1.5m away) for a while. The sales guys were also quite close. Lots of loud phone calls.

Just to bring a counterweight to the usual "I'm a virtuoso that needs absolute silence to work" stuff that gets posted every time open offices get mentioned.

<comment><USER12> I think that is a particular ability - I can do so as well, but I also recognize that it may be more the exception than the norm.

That said, I very much like private offices more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've never used any active noise cancelling headphones. I swear by wearing shooting or construction style hearing protectors. I wear them on air planes with my corded earbuds under them. And since I haves tarted a job where I share an office I definitely swear by them when an officemate starts talking loudly on the phone. I have these but I only bought them because they were in stock at the store [https://www.amazon.com/3M-Earmuff-Protectors-Hearing- Protect...](https://www.amazon.com/3M-Earmuff-Protectors-Hearing- Protection/dp/B00009LI4K/)

I used to feel weird wearing them on a plane but with big Beats-style headphones so common now I fit right in.

<comment><USER14> My range cans have an aux port and speakers on the inside. Maybe it's psychosomatic but I stand by the improved effectiveness gained by not breaking the seal snaking earbud lines under em'. ;)

I use your strategy from time to time though. If it's safe to shoot a .50 cal in em' it'll probably drown the shrill winging.

If you want to pump up (down?) the jams you can wear inner ear plugs under the outer ones. It's like a sensory deprivation tank for your mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm extremely sensitive to noise, so I've tried my fair share of solutions as well.

In terms of absolutely blocking sound, the best I've found thus far are a pair of Etymotic in-ear headphones. I don't recall the model I have. They aren't noise cancelling; they're basically just earplug headphones. But they are really effectively. Just be sure you use them correctly. It's easy to think you just plop them in your ear like normal earbuds. You have to insert them like ear plugs. When done correctly they create a seal and the noise blocking is incredible, even compared to the big PPE ear equipment I have. Plus they look just like any other earbuds to other people, so you don't look like a dork :P

Besides those, the Bose noise cancelling headphones are "okay". As others have mentioned, they're really poor at blocking nearby voices. If you're going to be listening to music, that's not much of an issue. But I tend to listen to podcasts, videos, etc, so there's nothing else extra to drown out what the headphones miss. And you're paying quite a premium for headphones that, in terms of build quality, sound quality, and features, are worth maybe 1/3 of the MSRP. Not much you can do about that; Bose holds patents on the best noise cancelling.

On a slight tangent. My sensitivities to noise have led me to some ... interesting solutions over the years living in noisy apartments. Hearing people's TVs, talking, etc through walls really bothers me. The solution I came up with was to pump white noise through a subwoofer, turned down really low. It creates a very subtle, low frequency rumble. It's just loud enough to drown out the stuff that bleeds through walls, but quiet enough that you forget it's there. By using just the subwoofer you target the majority of frequencies that can make it through walls, without adding the annoying "hiss" of regular white noise machines.

For me that was really effective for dealing with the day-to-day noise of apartments.

<comment><USER16> I have a pair of Grado earbuds that create a seal similar to Etymotics, but not as deep. Often times people will stand next to me and speak to me and I won't hear them (music at a moderate volume). I imagine your Etymotics are even better. The only reason I didn't get Etymotics is because my ears are super waxy and I didn't want to clean them every usage.

If you have the models I think you do, they're as expensive as the Bose QC35 headphones. However, Etys are easier to pack, have a better sound quality, and don't need batteries.

<comment><USER15> > If you have the models I think you do, they're as expensive as the Bose QC35 > headphones.

Now you've got me curious; I don't remember them being too pricey.

Looks like I have the MC5. <$100. Specs say they are rated for a noise reduction of 35-42dB. For reference the safety ear muffs I use are 34dB. (I'm half tempted now to use the Etys for PPE :P )

<comment><USER16> I was thinking of the ER4XR.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Headphones are _NOT_ a solution to open office plans. When I wear headphones or earbuds, I can block out the sounds, but I become more sensitive to other non-sound cues indicating human activity around me such as movement seen out of the corner of my eye and even air currents. And these become _more_ unnerving with the sound blocked out.

And open office plans are never adopted to "foster collaboration". That's bullshit that management feeds you to mask the real reasons:

1) they save money by packing more employees in the same space

2) it's an easy-to-implement panopticon, letting management keep tabs on you easily

<comment><USER18> I keep reading how we're "in demand" and how we're hard to find and retain - and then we're treated as disposably as fast-food burger-flippers: you're lucky you even have a job, you ungrateful wretch, so you'd better not complain about all of your efforts to make it nearly impossible to get your job done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Bose convert here after years of working in open offices, coding in cafes, flying, and what not. I have somewhat sensitive ears as a classical (hobbyist) musician and am always paranoid about hearing loss.

My main pain points have been:

1\. Distinct voices in conversation - I find that voices block voices, and instrumental music does a poorer job at this since it's maybe on different frequencies? I usually use a cafe-noise app like coffitivity to best stay focused.

2\. Loud continuous noises a la plane - the Bose headphones basically reduce the noise by ~20db I think, which makes the experience overall more bearable.

The main downside of noise-canceling headphones for some subset of people (alas me included) is that you get a weird pressure feeling when using them for prolonged periods of time. Apparently this is just us perceiving the change in ambient sound as a pressure difference so we feel like popping our ears. This basically happens in hour 1 of my usage.

As for attrition - I've had my QC35's for about a year and they haven't had any issues yet. My old QC25's lasted for 3 years and still work fine but got donated to make way for my new bluetooth ones.

[https://smile.amazon.com/Bose-QuietComfort-Wireless- Headphon...](https://smile.amazon.com/Bose-QuietComfort-Wireless-Headphones- Cancelling/dp/B0756CYWWD?_encoding=UTF8&ie=UTF8&keywords=qc35&pldnCmp=dls&pldnCrt=rdl&pldnNewCustomer=1&pldnSite=1&tag=sdnet-20&qid=1539101946&ref_=smi_ge_cnf_cnf_smi&s=electronics&sr=1-3) (note affiliatized Amazon donation link)

</comment><comment><USER20> For a brief moment I was interested in noise cancelling headphones for airplane usage.

Much, much simpler, cheaper - and certainly more effective - is to use any old earbuds that you prefer and put them underneath a pair of these:

[https://www.amazon.com/3M-Earmuff-Protectors-Hearing- Protect...](https://www.amazon.com/3M-Earmuff-Protectors-Hearing- Protection/dp/B00009LI4K/)

No batteries to deal with, no mode switching, much less expensive, etc. It works wonderfully and the only downside is that you look a little odd.

<comment><USER21> Noise cancelling isn't hearing protection, fwiw. Ear protectors do a much better job of that, too.

<comment><USER22> Yes, I have a pair of Bose QC15's ($150 refurb) that have given me excellent service for the past 3 years, but lately I've discovered that earplugs work just as well if you're not trying to listen to music.

Also when you're trying to sleep on a plane, Bose's active noise-cancellation stops working when you lean your head hard against a headrest (such that the earmuffs touch the headrest). I think it's just the nature of active noise- cancellation. I've resorted to earplugs when trying to sleep while flying.

<comment><USER21> Noise canceling isn't perfect, so it leaves comb filter peaks of uncanceled sound in the sound field.

<comment><USER22> It wasn't noise-cancelling not being perfect (it worked just fine), but noise cancelling going bonkers when the earmuffs come into contact with another solid object (in my case, neck cushion on seat). I think it broke the around- ear seal a teeny bit and that threw the noise cancellation off.

<comment><USER21> Right. I'm saying even when used correctly, it wasn't protecting your hearing from the noise of the flight. Notches of noise were poking through the filters despite the impression of quietness, and causing fatigue damage to the cells tuned to those frequencies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Noise cancelling cannot cancel out voices. It's designed to cancel out predictable lower frequency sounds such as fans, A/C system fans, engine rumbles and jet engine noise.

The noise cancelling system has an inherent delay in processing the sound it's listening to output an opposing waveform. Since voices are not predictable, outputting a waveform after a slight delay will just cause it to be out of sync and cancel out nothing. Maybe some ML system could do this in the future, but it would have to be absolutely perfect to not sound distractingly strange at times.

Fans on the other hand are predictable, so you can output an opposing waveform despite the processing delay because you can predict how the waveform will act after your processing delay and keep them in phase.

<comment> ju-st What amount of delay is acceptable?

<comment><USER24> In order to effectively cancel, it would have to be less than the time difference between the sound being detected/processed by the headphones and the sound being detected by your ears.

So, roughly the time it takes sound to travel at most an inch?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've worn headphones in open plan offices and that combined with a bunch of concerts and clubs has given me some good noise-induced hearing loss & tinnitus.

My Audiologist suggested the headphones dont help the Tinnitus as they trigger the Limbic system and heighten anxiety which could trigger Tinnitus. Anyone heard this?

So advice to people - go easy on the headphones, even if the volume isn't high - too many hours a week is bad. I'd avoid the white noise too - maybe just ear plugs are best.

<comment><USER26> Headphones generally help my tinnitus as long as I have something (anything) playing in them, even at extremely low volumes, but it's interesting there's a chance it could (temporarily) make it worse! That said, yes concerts/clubs, and poor choices when it comes to car audio, etc have all contributed to some hearing loss and tinnitus for me. I think headphones have been the smallest overall contributor. I typically don't listen to headphones turned up loud, however.

I'm pretty sure as long as the volume is always kept to a reasonable level, wearing headphones constantly shouldn't be an issue as far as any hearing damage is concerned. Especially when it comes to NC headphones- I would think this would often cause the wearer to not have to have the volume as high since less needs "drowned out".

There are other issues with long-term wearing, though, at least for some. For existing tinnitus I suppose it could be a problem- though even earplugs aggravate that for me because the less sound I hear externally the more perceptible my tinnitus gets (power outages are the worst because when a room goes dead silent my tinnitus goes nuts). And of course there are issues of comfort, migraines/headaches, etc

<comment><USER27> I also depend on noise to mask my tinnitus. However, depending on the type of noise, it doesn't take much. I've found certain genres of music (e.g. noise rock) to require less volume than white/pink/brown noise to have the same masking effect.

I use an earmuffs/earbuds combo for travel and certain office environments as I find that grants me the most control over the noise my ears are exposed to. That way, I can limit noise to useful/intentional noise, and keep the volume as low as possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > I noticed that most of their "noise-cancelling" was actually passive and > consisted of good noise suppression from the good seal created by the > headphone ear cups.

This is absolutely not the case, you can turn the cancelling on and off while still wearing them and it makes a huge difference to background noise. Many years ago they had a demo where you stand in the store and they blast a low- pitched white noise roar (like a jet engine) at you, and have you turn the cancelling on and off -- it's something ridiculous like a 45db drop. I bought a pair on the spot.

It's certainly the case that the cancelling is less effective at higher frequencies like voices than it is at low-pitch background noise, which does decrease their effectiveness in an office environment.

I have mixed opinions about build quality -- the originals were solid, I wore these around town most days for a few years, and they are now about 6 years old and still working. The replacement cups that I bought were garbage and disintegrated within 6 months of only at-desk wearing. So perhaps construction is not what it used to be.

Interestingly I heard that Bose patented the physically optimal geometry for noise-cancelling microphones, which would mean that their competitors are necessarily inferior at pure noise cancelling; don't know if that's true though.

I also find it annoying that these headphones require batteries to function even if you aren't using the noise cancelling feature; makes it very unreliable for carrying around town, but not a problem at my office desk. Without knowing anything about the electronics involved, it seems like it would be much better to have it degrade to being non-noise-cancelling powered headphones, instead of bricks, when the battery dies.

<comment><USER29> Pretty sure most of the current crop of ANC headphones can be wired in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I own a pair of the Sony Wh1000mx2/B. It was pretty pricey (I think $250ish?) when I bought about a year ago. They work flawlessly. I work in an open office and I think it's one of the peripherals I use the most out of anything, including my phone. No visible wear/damage or battery degradation so far. I highly recommend them! According to reviews the newer generation (Sony wh1000mx3)is even better than Bose's comfort and NC (significantly apparently).

<comment><USER31> I second the Sony WH1000XM2 or XM3. I owned both of them. In terms of noise cancelling I didn't notice much difference between them, except XM3 feels a bit more comfortable. Compared to Bose QC35, however, they were significantly superior. They were not even close.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, my ear area gets a bit sweaty if I wear it too long. How is the charging for the XM3? It takes a "while" to go to 100% full for my XM2. I hear that the XM3 blocks voice a bit better too?

<comment><USER31> XM3 has a usb-c connector with fast charging, so it's better than XM2. Going to 100% takes a while though (maybe about 1 hour) but charging it for about 10 min is enough to get you going for the whole day. I charge mine about once a week.

As for the noise cancelling, I haven't noticed much of a difference with XM2, but I'm not an audiophile anyway, so I'm not sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Personally not a fan of active noise cancellation as I dont like the feeling of it, plus the Bose are expensive and I mostly want to mask speech. I settled on noise isolation in the form of studio/dj headphones, that work well wearing for long periods with glasses on. Got these Beyerdynamic [https://www.amazon.com/beyerdynamic-770-PRO-Studio- Headphone...](https://www.amazon.com/beyerdynamic-770-PRO-Studio- Headphone/dp/B0016MNAAI/ref=mp_s_a_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1539102058&sr=8-15-spons&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=beyerdynamic+dt770+pro&psc=1) though paid around $130 instead. The 80 ohm version still works well with my phone without amp.

<comment><USER33> I have the 250 ohm impedance versions, they work really well for office-like situations and I used them extensively in college for studying, sometimes not even listening to anything.

However they really don't do a thing when on a plane or in a place with a lot of low frequency noise as passive noise cancellation doesn't work well for that. I ended up buying a cheap pair of active noise cancelling bluetooth headphones for traveling (which are pretty terrible at blocking voices/footsteps).

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I use mack's ultra soft ear plugs (correctly inserted, which most people don't do) and Bose QC35's with sound cancelling on playing non-lyrical electronic music loud enough to only hear faintly.

You will not hear a 747 land in your back yard.

Edit: How to insert correctly: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF1CjCugD_M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF1CjCugD_M)

</comment><comment><USER35> _Bose are great headphones for looking like you are an audiophile._

If you aren't an audiophile. Some audiophiles might well think, "Why are you wearing those? You're not on an airplane!" I much prefer passive noise isolation. Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro 80 Ohm is my recommendation, especially if you like bass. The 80 Ohm is much easier to drive, and you can even run them off your laptop in a pinch. The earpads are pretty good stock. Not everyone's head is compatible with big circles pressed up against them, however.

</comment><comment><USER36> I have found that using sound isolation earbud foam tips from Comply, which I can slip on my cheap earbuds from Sony /panasonic , along with my music helps me not go postal when the guy across from me is taking a conference call on this phone. Also I can't pull off that cool the-over-the-ear-phone-wearing- hipster look.

<comment><USER37> Comply foam tips are incredible. I bought a cheapo pair of in-ear wireless earphones off wish.com and the sound quality was abysmal, I stuck some Comply tips on and now they sound excellent. The tips cost more than the earphones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I have had good results by using this noise generator: [https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/cafeRestaurantNoiseGenerat...](https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/cafeRestaurantNoiseGenerator.php)

This site lets you customize the sounds that are generated. I crank the left ones (bass) up until it drowns the people that are talking around me.

The first minutes are a bit confusing because you are in the middle of a stream of conversations that you are not able to understand. After a few minutes you brain blocks everything, even the real conversation around you. It even works with my regular earbuds.

Sometimes, I put some mall/elevator music (the main artist for those is called Muzak) over it and I really feel like I'm working in a mall's Starbucks.

</comment><comment><USER39> I have the Sony WH1000XM2s and they work very well for an office. They have held up very well and give me noise cancellation, durability, and good sound quality. Sony just released the WH1000XM3s which are probably worth a look if you are in the market.

</comment><comment><USER40> Drummers have an interesting perspective on this problem:

[http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114491](http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114491)

The linked thread gets into some details that are irrelevant for programming, unless you use a click track to time your keystrokes. However, a lot of the same considerations apply, particularly the need for really strong attenuation, and the same discussions are had regarding in-ear versus over-ear monitors.

</comment><comment><USER41> I work in an open office. Turns out that if I'm in the zone, noise around me isn't a problem whatsoever, so long as someone doesn't say my name.

I end up wearing my Bose much less often than not.

<comment><USER7> For me, the office noise isn't a problem when I'm in the zone. The noise is a problem when I'm trying to _get into_ the zone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Article links to Ultraphones, - high isolation headphones.

"UltraPhones are SONY 7506 Studio Monitor headphone components mounted in a comfortable 29 db passive isolation hearing protection muff." [https://www.gk- music.com/product/ultraphones/](https://www.gk-music.com/product/ultraphones/)

Any experience on these? I've been using the BeyerDynamics mentioned in the thread, but I'm not fully satisfied with the isolation.

<comment><USER43> I've never used them but I would never recommend the Sony MDR7506 to anyone, they sound awful to me.

<comment><USER44> They're ( they, the MDR 7506 ) kind of a industry standard in professional editing and mixing settings, not to mention as monitors. They sound pretty good to a lot of people. I 'grew up' on them, perhaps I'm biased. I've got a pair kicking around that are over 20 years old.

Absolutely, get the cans that sound good to you. Get whatever sounds good to you, doesn't matter what they are. But, please, give a listen to as many different cans as you are able to. Speakers and headphones are terribly, terribly subjective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I got the big Leight headphones a while back and more recently QC35's.

My wife happened to get the older model MPOW adapter in the post; it broke with the blue-flashing-light issue that appears in some user reviews--she replaced it with a Yeti, which worked. Also, MPOW has newer models that might not have the issue and at least one reviewer said MPOW replaced their blue- flashing-light unit.

Seems accurate that the Leight things' passive isolation, combined with playing most any sound through them, should make background speech indistinct enough to be less distracting. Generally, like the post says, ANC is great at quieting deep rumbles (cars, trains, etc.), and physical isolation is better at blocking higher pitches (speech and higher noise). (Also ++ to the comment saying it's a shame many folks have to make up for employers imposing open offices, but only so much a single worker can do about that.)

What the Bose have going for them are 1) ANC seems like a legit win for train or plane trips, 2) I wanted a BT _headset_ (including a mic for phone calls) and the QC35s provide that, 3) the QC35's are decent, though not audiophile- level, as headphones. And I'd heard lots of praise for them from acquaintances, which made me hopeful there'd be no unpleasant surprises.

The QC35's are doing the job. I _don 't_ know if some cheaper/different arrangement would _also_ have done the job. ANC seems great when you want it, but for me that's not every day; maybe I could have gone w/something cheaper, or two setups similar to the blog post, one for work/calls and the other for the occasional noisy trip.

</comment><comment><USER46> I swear by the the 3m X5A headphones[1] (which have 4.8, 8.1, and 12.4dB better attenuation at 125Hz, 250Hz, and 500Hz than the Leight Sync headphones in the article, according to their datasheet[2]), plus the Koss KSC75 headphones[3], with the clip removed and shoved inside, per [4].(I've since added a little wedge of foam behind each of the headphones to better keep them in place.)

The better attenuation at low frequencies makes these really good at blocking human voices, which is the thing that I find most distracting in an open office. With even a little bit of music, I can barely tell that people are having a conversation 10 feet from me.

The headphone cables can sometimes break the seal, but I find shifting them usually fixes it. Besides, the noise that sneaks in is high-frequency stuff like key clicks, not distracting voices.

The downsides are: these are extremely large cans (2.5-3" deep), the KSC75s have a pretty short cable, and if you drop your cans or yank the cable, the headphones will tend to pop out.

1\. [https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CPCHBCQ](https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CPCHBCQ) 2\. [https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/845196O/3m-peltor-x- seri...](https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/845196O/3m-peltor-x-series- passive-hearing-protection-earmuff-technical-data-sheet.pdf) 3\. [https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006B486K](https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006B486K) 4\. [https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/5bwu48/homemade...](https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/5bwu48/homemade_noise_isolating_headphones_p/)

</comment><comment><USER47> I recently tried a coworker's QC35s and was impressed. I decided to buy the TaoTronics TT-BH22 [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B075CBHN9M/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B075CBHN9M/) (about $60; don't get tricked by the "newer model of this item" link which is quite different) -- and I think they're a fantastic value with maybe 75% of the noise cancellation performance of the $300+ name-brand product. I use them basically all day in our open office. The active noise cancellation cuts down tremendously on low-frequency noise from air handlers and distant conversations. Would recommend.

One downside is that when they're first turned on, I can faintly hear the switching power supply charging up the internal capacitors for the first few seconds. But I've been told that I have unusually good high-frequency hearing, and this basically goes away once it's charged, and is certainly not audible over music.

</comment><comment><USER48> I've done the same thing with the sync. the only difference is that I have hot glued the bluetooth adaptor on the right side of the head band. I have a small 3.5mm cable that links the adaptor to the headphones.

Proper ear monitors are the holy grail, as they are comfortable (if you have your ear cast/pour done properly) and should have >28 db of noise reduction. Alas I don't have a proper cast anymore, its about £200 to get it done properly.

The problem with noise cancelling headphones is they are great for white noise/whirs/traffic, they are terrible at blocking voices.

However I don't have music playing in the office. I just use the ear defenders as attenuators. Its only on the commute do I listen to stuff.

The sync only knocks off 25db, you can get ear plugs/defenders that reduce noise by 34db. Some of the howard leight squidgy earplugs are super comfortable, soft enough to sleep in.

</comment><comment><USER49> I found moldable earplugs to be better than the foam ones. Something like this:

[https://earplugsonline.com/](https://earplugsonline.com/)

Yo don't have to wait for them to expand like the foam ones. They also don't press on your glasses like over-the-ear headphones or ear protectors.

</comment><comment><USER50> The author says he tried the bose qc20 (in-ear headphones), but then goes onto describe the bose qc25 (over-ear headphones). I'd like to defend the honor of the bose qc20, which has superior noise canceling to the qc25. While it's true that it doesn't block out talking, it makes it sound like it's in a distant room, and with a little bit of white noise or music it makes the open office noise a non-issue for me. Furthermore, it's a godsend in a loud city and it's incredible to hear the little details in your music and not having to crank your volume past 50%.

That said, they're super pricey and they do fall apart, but I've got mine patched up after three years and holding onto them until other products can match this level of noise canceling.

<comment><USER51> I bought 3 pairs of QC20s. Each of them fell apart in less than a year, despite absurdly careful care. There's a design flaw where the wire connects to the battery pack. Tape could only hold them together for so long.

After 3 failures I vowed to not buy another one, despite the exceptional sound canceling. I switched to a cheapo $30 Samsung pair I bought at an airport, beat it to hell and back, and it's in perfect shape years later.

<comment><USER50> It's true, the build quality is bad and my coworker has the same exact issues as mine (rubber coating came off the casing, volume up button stops clicking but can still be mushed down to use). The battery pack casing started to open up and would cause line noise, especially when charging.. I glued the case back together and it seems to be better now. I think I could have used the soft case more, instead of keeping them bare in my pockets, but it seems inevitable that they'd fall apart anyway. I can't really recommend them because of these issues, but the noise canceling is one of those magical life upgrades for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> These have higher DB cancellation: [https://www.amazon.com/3M-Earmuff- Protectors-Hearing-Protect...](https://www.amazon.com/3M-Earmuff-Protectors- Hearing- Protection/dp/B00009LI4K/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1539112187&sr=8-8&keywords=construction+headphones&dpID=51fbuP- CLzL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch)

I use them, but without audio. Just for pure silence, then use my Bose headphones when I want to actually hear anything?

</comment><comment><USER53> I've tried brown noise a while ago and it certainly didn't work for me. Being stressed out by a constant background noise is not the same as silence.

</comment><comment><USER54> > _NOTE 2: Depending on the shape of your head the head band of the earmuffs > can make the crown of your head hurt – though this is not limited to > earmuffs as may headphones have this undesirable feature._

I tied a piece of memory foam that I salvaged from an old mattress to the head band, using two strips of velcro tape. Looks ridiculous, works really well.

</comment><comment><USER55> Having gone through a couple pairs of the Bose QC35, I am currently happy with the Sennheiser PXC 550. The noise cancellation is comparable and I feel like the sound quality is just a tiny bit better.

But perhaps the best part is they protrude less than the Bose, making it easier to listen while lying down.

</comment><comment><USER56> Has anyone here successfully lobbied their management to get rid of the open office plan?

A good game plan for that seems much more valuable than headphone recommendations.

</comment><comment><USER57> Aren't ear-plugs noise cancelling?

What if they just put tiny speakers inside ear-plugs and bypassed the whole active noise cancelling component?

<comment><USER58> That's pretty much the venerable Etymotic which also have the best isolation as per that site: [https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/isolation/noise- isol...](https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/isolation/noise-isolation- cancellation-passive-active)

For me, they're not comfortable for more than 3 or so hours while I can have either The QC30 or HD800S on all day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> A cheaper option is any type of over the ear hearing protection and in ear headphones if you want to listen to music.

But neat none the less.

<comment><USER60> That's pretty much exactly what option #2 from TFA is.

The author quotes a higher price, but that's only because the recommended pair of headphones costs more than the entirety of the first option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> It's funny that people are trying to hard to advance tech in active noise cancelling. The real secret is in the materials -- I don't know how but my favorite passive headphones knock out ambient noise better than most of the active cans (Bose or other) I've demoed at tech stores. Plus, they cost less and reproduce music more accurately (which may or may not be to everyone's liking)

</comment><comment><USER62> This guy has a lot of misconceptions.

        > Bose are great headphones for looking like you are
        > an audiophile. As far as I can tell – from talking
        > to friends who are recording music in studios – nobody
        > uses them professionally.

Listening to music at home != listening for professional use.

Most common pro studio headphones are Sony MDR 7506's. They are pretty enjoyable for home use too but (like all studio headphones) are a little thin on the bass.

Leaving aside the "audiophile" term since it means different things to different people.

Home headphones have bass that is typically either moderately boosted (as in the Bose QC15/25/35) or ridiculously boosted (some Beats headphones, especially the early models) That doesn't mean they're "bad" because his "friends who are recording music in studios" don't use them. You just can't realistically use them for creating professional audio.

        >  They do a pretty good job with steady constant droning
        > noises (like the HVAC fans) but any higher frequency
        > sound – like people talking – is left uncancelled.

Not true. High frequency sound isn't attenuated nearly as much as low frequency sounds, but is pretty effectively blocked by the Bose if you have any audio whatsoever playing, even at low volumes.

        > (i.e. they break apart within a few months of daily use)

Wow. I know lots and lots of people who own them and they typically last years. What's this guy doing to his headphones?

        > you need to purchase expensive replacement parts for them. I've
        > replaced the ear cups on them twice so far and for the last pair
        > I've been very careful not to damage them. The problem is they
        > come undone even if I barely use them and at $30 a pair they are
        > expensive!!!

Ear pads last a year or two of daily use. Never had them "come undone."

BTW when I say "daily use" I don't mean abusive daily use. If you're transporting them you can't just throw them into a bag or they will wear out/break sooner. Of course that's true for most headphones.

As far as expensive replacements, there are great $15 unofficial pads on eBay, they are indistinguishable from the OEM pads to me.

        > I noticed that most of their "noise-cancelling" was actually
        > passive and consisted of good noise suppression from the good
        > seal created by the headphone ear cups.

This guy's really living on another planet. There's a very significant difference when you flip the switch from passive to active.

        > Music after a while gets tiring – especially when I'm in my
        > 8th hour of listening through emotionally taxing soundtracks
        > like Two Steps from Hell

"I listened to emotionally taxing music for eight hours straight and I found it emotionally taxing" Cool insight!

        > I got myself a pair of [actual passive noise canceling headphones
        > like you'd find at a hardware store]

In all seriousness, if serious noise cancellation is what you need, yeah -- it's true. A cheap pair of passive noise cancellers from a hardware store will block more sound than a Bose. It's what I wear when using my table saw or other power tools. They are much, much larger than the Bose though. If you're cool with that, then you're set.

Lest anybody wonder if I'm some kind of secret Bose operative, I will also say that Sony's latest noise canceling headphones have really closed the gap in my opinion. Of course, maybe I could be some kind of secret double triple agent working for multiple Big Headphone entities.

</comment><comment><USER63> such an annoying title. Bose is not synonymous with noise cancelation. Noise cancelation is a technology independent of a brand</comment>


Why should you trust ProtonMail? - <AUTHOR> https://protonmail.com/blog/is-protonmail-trustworthy/ <comment><USER2> I run a marketplace website. Most (actually I think all) of my users who use protonmail are scammers trying to sell fake goods - therefore banned. I might even ban all with @protonmail.com.

<comment><USER3> Do you think that reflect poorly or well on ProtonMail's trustworthiness?

<comment><USER2> I'm thinking it doesn't matter if ProtonMail's technology is trustworthy if the users are using it for untrustworthy purposes. Tor browser technology might be fancy, but expect the end IPs to be blacklisted or recaptcha'd to death. If you use mailgun (instead of a more restrictive service like Postmark) expect your emails to go to the junk folder. ProtonMail may share the same fate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In the ProtonMail Threat Model document[1], in the "What ProtonMail does not guard against" section, you should add "Dissenting Opinions".

I know of at least one case where a vocal right-wing personality had his account removed because he listed it as his contact.

I understand ProtonMail is a private company and can do what they want. So they should be honest about not being a safe place for dissenting opinions.

[1]: [https://protonmail.com/blog/protonmail-threat- model/](https://protonmail.com/blog/protonmail-threat-model/)

<comment><USER5> Though experiment: what if the "dissenting opinion" is advocating for human trafficking, with a specialization for children to be sold as sex slaves? Or something equally awful.

Does the business have the right to refuse to service a customer that society should rightly condemn?

<comment><USER6> A private business should have the right to refuse service for any reason they choose. I believe the point the original OP was trying to make is that a business should be transparent about its willingness to refuse service to those they find, "socially awful".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been using this with my own domain for several years now and have no complaints so far. Effective and reliable from my perspective. Satisfied customer looking forward to their next security-forward features and deeply grateful to have the correspondence most sensitive to me off gmail and similar!

</comment><comment><USER8> Currently in process of moving away from yahoo mail (after 25+ years of using it) to proton. Highly recommend it.

<comment><USER9> I am on the fence about moving over to ProtonMail since forever now. What are the reasons you highly recommend it?

<comment><USER8> The fact that Yahoo got bought by Verizon was the last straw for me. Started with their BS move of getting rid of YM, best ever IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I just canceled my Visionary account and moved back to my grandfathered GSuite Free Tier. I missed the classification of promotional/social/updates that Google offered and the speed at which the service worked. Sure, I may have been able to create filters to do the same on ProtonMail, but I just couldn't find the time. CloudFlare's Warp VPN has also eliminated my need for ProtonVPN at this time.

I may re-evaluate ProtonMail if they ever introduce FIDO2 support. Despite how you may feel about Google, I do believe my account is safer with them than ProtonMail as my Google account cannot be logged into with the appropriate security key.

<comment><USER11> Can you please elaborate on the setup with security key?

<comment><USER10> It's Google's Advanced Protection Program.

[https://landing.google.com/advancedprotection/](https://landing.google.com/advancedprotection/)

First only available to Google accounts, and then recently released to GSuite customers. They will encourage you to use their keys, but a YubiKey or other FIDO2 key works just as well. Once enabled, you can remove all other forms of recovery from your account (so no SMS, backup codes, TOTP codes, etc).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you are willing to pay for protonmail.com, why not just use GSuite or O365 Business? The content of your emails are not used for marketing and you get more features/products for your money. My threat model is not disgruntle employees searching through my emails, or govt. out to get me.</comment>


Ask HN: Best Way to Register Company HQ? - <AUTHOR> I am getting an EIN for an LLC. As I've read in several places, I should not use the address of the Registered Agent (e.g., https://www.delawareinc.com/blog/where-is-my-business-located/).
However, I'm hesitant to provide a personal address because (1) I've read about the personal address potentially being subject to legal claims; (2) General privacy concerns; and (3) I'm currently in-between addresses, my current address is very temporary.
Are there any websites or easy to use solutions for founding physical company addresses? <comment><USER2> Not sure, if this is what you want: [https://www.clevver.io/](https://www.clevver.io/)

There are others, like [https://www.ukpostbox.com/address/free-po-box- rental](https://www.ukpostbox.com/address/free-po-box-rental) , which offer free or cheap street or po box addresses with scanning of incoming items.

</comment><comment><USER3> That some company you used, Delaware Registered Agent, also offers a virtual office which you can rent for $50 a month and use as a physical address with mail and phone forwarding. That's who I use.

</comment><comment><USER4> theres a lot of virtual address providers for specific cities. Not PMBs but proper addresses. One I can remember from the top of my head is da vinci virtual. search for their website, they charge you like $200 and give a lot of services</comment>


What's new in purely functional data structures since Okasaki? (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/1539/whats-new-in-purely-functional-data-structures-since-okasaki

<comment><USER2> Out of curiosity, how to purely functional data structures compare with classic mutable data structures in terms of real hardware performance? From what I hear, they are useful if you are into functional purity, and sometimes if you are doing certain parallel programming tasks, but suffer significant overhead outside that domain, but I would like to hear of any specific evidence people have in either direction.

<comment><USER3> Since the other comments are platitudes, I'll try to give some concrete information. Well implemented purely functional data structures are usually anywhere from just as fast to about 20x slower. If the imperative version is tree like, the cost for lookups in the functional version is the same, but the cost for updating is a bit higher because a path needs to be copied rather than just 1 node modified in place. For a data structure like an unordered map, you can use a hash table backed by an array for the imperative version, but you'll have to use a tree for the purely functional one. This can cause about a 10x-20x slowdown.

For example in this post [http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/very-fast- scalable-m...](http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/very-fast-scalable- mutable-maps-and-hashes-for-haskell/) Haskell's Data.Map is compared with Judy arrays, and found to be 11x slower. Judy arrays themselves are about 2x slower than a basic hash table [http://preshing.com/20130107/this-hash-table-is- faster-than-...](http://preshing.com/20130107/this-hash-table-is-faster-than- a-judy-array/)

Is this slow? Perhaps, but in most cases the difference is smaller. Compare this to the speed of Ruby vs C, that can easily be a 100x difference yet people use Ruby a lot because of productivity reasons.

<comment><USER4> Importantly, comparing "ephemeral" structures - those that destroy previous states through direct hardware mutation - with persistent structures (such as all pure data structures) - is a fraught topic.

You can surely gain speed ups on real hardware directly mutating memory you know to be reusable (linear) - but proving that precondition is very hard, and we often screw it up.

Persistent data is a safe default. Mutation/destruction is an optimisation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For people who've read it, do you have a review of Okasaki's book? Also, what background should someone have before reading it (eg should you be able to read it after reading Learn You a Haskell? Should you already be familiar with the imperative equivalents?)

<comment><USER6> It's the best book about data structures in functional programming, as relevant today as when it was published almost fifteen (gasp) years ago.

You can get a flavor of the book by reading Okasaki's PhD thesis: [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/theses/okasaki.pdf](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/theses/okasaki.pdf)

The book is essentially a fleshed-out version of this thesis.

<comment><USER7> Why there's no updated book out there (in the cold!) ?

<comment><USER8> See here why not: [http://okasaki.blogspot.de/2008/02/ten-years-of-purely- funct...](http://okasaki.blogspot.de/2008/02/ten-years-of-purely-functional- data.html?m=1)

<comment><USER9> _" That changed one day during a walk in the snow."_

The paragraph that follows this phrase in the OA is straight out of _The psychology of invention in the mathematical field_ by Jacques Hadamard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Note that this thread has been submitted many times to HN, but it never generated generate many comments:

[https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=what's...](https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=what's+new+okasaki&start=0)

<comment><USER11> I think posting one algorithm you really like and explaining why works better than a laundry list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The importance of the Phil Bagwell/Rich Hickey* vector can't be understated. AFAIK, pretty much all standard immutable lists provided by platforms use this work.

*Bagwell designed the tries as a mutable data structure. Hickey saw how to apply that to a workable immutable list implementation.

</comment><comment><USER13> Even as a rabid user of Scala and sometimes Erlang, it strikes me that "exciting purely functional data structures" may be an oxymoron.</comment>


Painting with Code - <AUTHOR> http://labs.ideo.com/2014/06/04/painting-with-code

<comment><USER2> Processing, [http://www.processing.org/](http://www.processing.org/), almost seems a de facto development environment for Generative Art - I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned. It has an easy to grasp syntax (which is translated to plain Java in the background), a simple IDE, a huge collection of examples and a selection of great books to help a novice artist on track. Some books, see [http://www.processing.org/books/](http://www.processing.org/books/) for a list, especially target Generative Art.

Personal recommendation: "Processing: A Programming Handbook for Visual Designers and Artists" by the original Processing authors, Casey Reas and Ben Fry.

<comment><USER3> I was introduced to Processing and MaxMsp [1] in a college course where I was tasked in creating generative art and sound installations. I had no programming experience and I agree it was easy to pick up and definitely drove my interest in programming. I think its a great way for artists to get started in something that can become very complex

[1] [http://cycling74.com/products/max/](http://cycling74.com/products/max/) as an aside there is an open source version of MaxMSP called puredata that was also excellent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Data](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Data)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's amazing the images that can be generated from algorithms. It's an interesting area. I think a lot can be learned from looking at what coders in demoscene[1] have done, easy to lose hours tinkering with them.

[1] [http://www.pouet.net/](http://www.pouet.net/)

<comment><USER5> Indeed, and not only static images, but also animation and audio can be procedurally generated.

No discussion of computer-generated art is complete without a mention of the demoscene. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interestingly, generative art is 50 years old, maybe more! Check for example the work of Vera Molnar, creating generative art with science computers and tracers back in 1968: [http://dam.org/artists/phase-one/vera-molnar/artworks- bodies...](http://dam.org/artists/phase-one/vera-molnar/artworks-bodies-of- work/works-from-the-1960s-70s) The national museum of modern art in Paris actually has 8 piece of a similar later work from 1976 in its collection : [http://www.centrepompidou.fr/cpv/ressource.action?param.id=F...](http://www.centrepompidou.fr/cpv/ressource.action?param.id=FR_R-c2f09c215b8ad68194d474c01d8cd1&param.idSource=FR_O-1a1e5a215fb6166a1c4abf90707c1a7c)

</comment><comment><USER7> For those new in Generative Art check out [http://www.creativeapplications.net/](http://www.creativeapplications.net/) \- a lot of cool stuff is featured there.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is the first time I've ever downloaded code samples in rtf.

<comment><USER9> I was confused by this, too. Also there are absolutely no imports. This leaves me really confused, wondering why why why anyone would ever do such a thing.

I have two benevolent, understanding and sympathetic explanations: The author is from yesteryear and hasn't worked with other people in a while.

The other one is: He is a genious hacker and knows how to social engineer most of hn. Since Most links point to the same rtf document it might just be a way to spread a very delicate RTF reader exploit..

<comment><USER10> Edit: I can't read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A friend of mine made Uncontext [0] with the goal of having people use it to create content as in this article. Instead, I made a hopping bunny. [1]

[0] - [http://www.uncontext.com/](http://www.uncontext.com/)

[1] - [http://www.uncontext.com/literature/bunny- hop](http://www.uncontext.com/literature/bunny-hop)

</comment><comment><USER12> Here's another generative art tool. [http://www.contextfreeart.org/](http://www.contextfreeart.org/) (cfdg)

Hmm, a quick search reveals that it has been posted here before, with little interest.

I've done `apt-get install cfdg` (context free design grammar) and played with it.

It's pretty trivial to set up an edit/render/view loop using the 'run script' function of your favorite text editor.

You make movies by dumping a single frame, changing the file or parameters, repeating that, and then stitching the frames together with some external program.

This tool is made for unix weenies like myself. It's functional, unless you call random(), but you can specify a seed if you want it to remain functional!

</comment><comment><USER13> These are far from the only coding artists using environments like Processing. There are some vibrant communities around pixel art and glitch art in California, Chicago and elsewhere [http://sdt.bz/66392](http://sdt.bz/66392).

</comment><comment><USER14> Generative Art will take off when it _doesn 't_ require expressing the code through conventional programming language syntax. A visual, interactive programming environment like those advocated by Bret Victor [1] would be ideal for artists without a technical background.

NodeBox, mentioned below, have some characteristics of this, although it doesn't seem to allow the artist to create new abstractions without resorting back to Python.

[1] in _Stop Drawing Dead Fish_. [http://vimeo.com/64895205](http://vimeo.com/64895205)

<comment><USER15> I don't think that generative art needs to stop requiring programming skills to be successful. The huge community of www.processing.org artists who code suggests this requirement is not a problem. The whole point of generative are is to use programming language as the tool of visual expression as opposed for example to using UI based tools like Photoshop or Illustrator.

Any art (visual or not) requires creators to use various tools and learning these tools takes a lot of time and afford. And mastering them often takes insane amounts of study and practice. Think of work required to learn to sketch human figure well or chisel it out of wood. Think of years of training required to play a violin concerto. Or to dance a ballet piece. Programming is just a new/differnt tool required for creating generative art.

I would even go as far as stating the opposite. Attempting creation of generative art via interfaces other then conventional programming languages is what would limit it! This is for the same reason that professional programmers haven't adopted (not yet at least) visual programming languages - they are too limited in their expressiveness.

The whole interest in generative art and design is driven by the fact that you can create things that you cannot using Adobe (etc...) tools. All the Photoshop and other image creation and editing applications are very powerful, but still limited by the imagination of the people who made them. Creating images using code lets you escape these limitations. This is what makes it an interesting new visual arts discipline.

And if you study lives of many artists you realize that they can be pretty obsessed and determined to work hard to learn tools and techniques in the process of their practice, so I am not worried - there will be many who will become excellent programmers!

What stops fast adoption of this type of art is the educational institutions insistence on separating artists from engineers. If computer science departments offered and occasional art course and fine art departments intro to programming, the generative arts would possibly become one of the most popular art forms in the new century. It would also help more of multidisciplinary creative thinking on both sides. I certainly agree with the article that the possibilities are immense...

<comment><USER16> Respectfully disagree. I think it's easy for people who have by now built an intuitive grasp of code to appreciate how challenging tools like Processing can be for a beginner.

I have a design background and learned front end code (and eventually ruby on rails) by getting progressively more interested in how the things I was designing were built. I feel like I achieved a pretty respectable level of knowledge in what I had been exposed to.

And yet, many aspects of Processing were a huge leap for me. I spent days looking at code examples just to try and grok how 3D works in processing. I get it now (mostly), but it still feels unintuitive. I can certainly imagine a language that would describe 3D behavior, and a whole host of other things, in a way that a visual artist would describe them.

I definitely believe that there is value in artists learning to think with the rigor that code encourages. It's a fascinating cross-pollination. Creativity often springs from encountering the limits of a medium (and one's mastery of the medium).

But look at the excitement this week among people like me about Swift. It's not about whether it was _possible_ before for me to learn Objective C and build a game. It was. But goddamnit, it's such a pain, and I would certainly understand that someone who is starting from zero in terms of CS knowledge would find it impossibly intimidating.

Design is remarkably accessible. If you can pick up a pen and paper, you can do it. Code is getting way closer to that, but let's not have collective Stockholm syndrome. Our tools are a long way away from where they could be.

Honestly, I wish I had the skills to write a language or build the tools like the ones I can imagine myself. But I have confidence that someone will. It's going to be an exciting time for art, and I think it's coming very soon.

<comment><USER15> It's a fascinating discussion. Maybe we can meet half way?

> I definitely believe that there is value in artists learning to think with > the rigor that code encourages. It's a fascinating cross-pollination...

I agree!

> Design is remarkably accessible...

But this... Well it depends on the point of view. Design can be as intimidating for geeks as programming is for artists.

I have nothing against making programming tools more user or artist friendly. In a sense Photoshop is such a step - it allows many creators make sophisticated images without learning to draw and without learning to program. And certainly many many amazing works were created with it and similar tools.

The point I am trying to make here is that the visual/artistic power or possibilities of generative art and design are very much driven and dependent on the artist's fluency to program. There were many attempts to create programming tools [1] that let you avoid having to slog through typing the code, but seems like none of them would match the expressive possibilities of 'raw' coding and gain any wider adoption. In other words all of them have significant limitations and this would be a step back from the point of view generative artist.

And just to make it clear, I don't think that using any of these higher level tools is wrong or produces works of lesser value. It's just that these works are outside of unique possibilities of generative art driven by traditional coding.

[1] [http://blog.interfacevision.com/design/design-visual- progarm...](http://blog.interfacevision.com/design/design-visual-progarmming- languages-snapshots/)

<comment><USER14> Have you seen the "Stop drawing dead fish" and other Bret Victor talks? Those are not high level tools, they allow you to build generative animation and graphs from scratch.

Photoshop-like visual tools are indeed limited to pre-built concepts, but Victor has found a way to make coding possible without textual syntax; that's a powerful idea that may be the basis for a tool allowing artists to program without requiring the programmer's skill to keep the parse-tree-plus-AST in your head while building automations.

Take a look at the topic of End User Development and Programming by Example[1], it's a quite comprehensive research field dealing with ways that programming-like activities can be done without any traditional "raw coding".

[1] [http://web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/Your- Wish/](http://web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/Your-Wish/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've been playing a bit with generative art in scheme. The author talks about finding a way to code visual ideas. It can work the other way around, too, i.e. the algorithms we use in our programming work can themselves be a rich source of visual ideas. Inhabiting this space of translation between the visual and 'algorithmic' minds can be quite fun.

</comment><comment><USER18> Nodebox seems awesome! [http://nodebox.net/](http://nodebox.net/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I'll just leave this here:

[https://sites.google.com/site/structuralreality/](https://sites.google.com/site/structuralreality/)

</comment><comment><USER20> The painting analogy isn't really warranted, and this article is a metaphor at best. You could replace painting with poetry, music, or building furniture. There are a few definitions of painting, and there's lots of art being made that plays at pushing those definitions, so I can't claim to have the definitive one. However, essential things, such as the interface (which is in no small part responsible for the content of a painting), and the actual final product as object, are very, very different. A medium is also defined by its constraints, and from code to screen or printout the constraints of image- making are unlike anything you have in painting.

Generative art is beautiful, but not because it has anything to do with painting.

Edit: If this seems harsh, it's because I care about code just as much as I do about painting. Using any one of them as a catch-all for stereotypes is intellectually lazy (and often irritating).

<comment><USER21> This seems unnecessarily harsh. That this generative art and painting are both visual arts in (mostly) two dimensions seems a pretty strong similarity. Why would you compare it to genres of art less similar? Also, some paintings strongly resemble this kind of generative art. E.g, I assume code could be used to generate something quite similar to "drip painting" in general, and Jasper Johns work in particular. You can make a comparison without trying to equate the two.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Who is the target audience for this article? Lines like

      I leverage the power of my computer to generate the
      artwork. Where a classical fine artist would pull out
      his oils and brushes to express colors and shapes,
      I do the same with parameters.

make it seem like it's written for people who have never seen code before, but then there are extensive code samples. But (!) as people have mentioned, there is almost no context given for the samples and the code file is an RTF.

What?

Edit: I also meant to say that 86 points for this article at time of writing this comment must mean HN _is_ the audience. I'm not sure I like that.

Edit 2: Which is not to say I don't like his work. It's pretty cool.</comment>